Go to the Morphing Textbook Home Page

Go to the University of Iowa Rhetoric Department Home Page
A 10:002 or 10:003 Unit ~ History, Memory, and Advocacy
Schedule
Formal Assignments

Week 4: The public debate

The readings for the remainder of the unit center on the debate that raged in the editorial pages of American newspapers about the Smithsonian’s decision to cancel an exhibit taken to be critical of American foreign policy.  But of course, these readings are about more than that. At issue are the validity of certain bits of historical evidence, the politics of interpretation, evaluations of the “culture wars”, and the proper role of public history in the US.

Day 1

Reading: Tony Cappaccio and Uday Mohan, “How the US Press Missed the Target” (364-375)

Activity: Library – Divide class into groups of 3-4.  Assign two groups to the 1940s, two to the 1990s and one to the period in between – have them bring in 3 examples of press coverage on Hiroshima from their decade.

Day 2

Reading: Kai Bird, “How a Genuine Democracy Should Celebrate It’s Past” (pp. 377-380); Charles Krauthammer, “World War II, Revisited, Or How We Bombed Japan Out of Racism and Spite” (pp. 385-387)

Activity: Brief presentations (5 minutes on the findings) and discussion on findings from library activity. Draft a resolution for the Smithsonian on the role of public history in the US. 

Day 3

Reading:  Gar Alperovitz, “Beyond the Smithsonian Flap: Historians’ New Consensus” and “Enola Gay: A New Consensus” (387-392); Robert P. Newman, “What New Consensus?” (392-396)

Activity: Debate and discuss: Whose side of the argument is most compelling?  Why?  What are the difficulties associated with interpreting historical evidence presented here?  Who is the audience for historical writing of this kind?  Who should the audience be?
See Instructor Note #4.

Day 4

Workshop #1

Week 5: Public Advocacy

Day 1

Reading:  Jonathan Yardley, “Dropping a Bomb of an Idea” (396-398); Barton Bernstein, “Hiroshima, Rewritten” (398-399); Editorial, Wall Street Journal, “The Trend of History” (399-400); Editorial, Washington Post, “The Smithsonian Changes Course” (400-401). Kai Bird, “Enola Gay: Politically Correct” (408-409); Martin Harwit, “The Enola Gay: A Nation’s, and a Museum’s Dilemma” (380-382); Kai Bird, “The Curators Cave In” (382-384).

Activity: How do these authors characterize historical revision?  What are their reasons for doing so? 

Day 2

Workshop #2

Day 3

Workshop #3

Day 4

Papers due

top of page